People v. Donaldson

California Supreme Court Jun 30, 1886 No. No. 20174Published

Before: Foote

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the information was legally sufficient, the jury instructions were properly refused, and the evidence supported the conviction for obtaining property under false pretenses.

Issues

Whether the information filed against the defendant was legally sufficient.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to give specific jury instructions requested by the defendant.
Whether a bank check can constitute a false token under the statute.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The information charged the offense in proper language sufficient to meet the requirements of sections 532, 950, 951, and 952 of the Penal Code.”

“A bank check may be a false token, and would be such under the statute, if the drawer knew when he gave it, payable to a person other than himself, that he had neither funds to meet it nor credit at the bank upon which he drew it.”

Synopsis

Gbiminal Law—Obtaining Pbofebty undeb False Pbetenses—Infobmation. —An information for obtaining money under false pretenses is sufficient if it charges the offense substantially in the language of the Penal Code defining it.

Id.—Bank Check—False Token—Want of Funds to Meet Check.— In a prosecution for obtaining property under false pretenses, a bank check drawn by the defendant in favor of the person alleged to have been defrauded, and in payment of the property obtained, is a false token within the meaning of section 1110 of the Penal Code, if the defendant knew when he gave the check that he had neither funds to meet it nor credit at the bank upon which it was drawn.

Id. —Evidence—Instbuctión. —Where the evidence discloses that the property was obtained through the instrumentality of such a false token, the refusal to instruct the jury to acquit unless they found that the defendant told the owner of the property that he had the money in bank, and that the owner was induced to part with the property by reason of that representation, is not error.

Id. — Deliveby of Pbopebty—Vesting of Title—Question fob Juby— Conflict of Evidence. —In such a case, the question whether or not the property was delivered and title thereto vested in the defendant before the giving of the check is for the jury, and its finding thereon will not he disturbed when the evidence is conflicting.

Id. —Evidence Eavobable to Defendant. —A defendant cannot object to the introduction of evidence if its only effect was favorable to him.

Foote, C. The defendant was found guilty by a jury of having obtained certain property from one Spence under false pretenses, with intent to cheat and defraud him.

From the judgment of conviction and an order refusing a new trial appeals are taken. His first contention is, that the information filed against him was insufficient, and that the court erred in overruling the demurrer filed thereto.

Upon examination, we are satisfied that the court was right in its ruling in that matter.

The information charged the offense in proper language sufficient to meet the requirements of sections 532, 950, 951, and 952 of the Penal Code. The charge of the learned judge, giving to it an unstrained interpretation, was, we think, in all respects in accordance with law, and was especially full and fair toward the defendant.

The refusal to give certain instructions asked by the defendant is assigned as error also. They were as follows:—

“ Before you can convict, you must find as a fact in this case that before the sale and delivery of the hogs in question, the defendant represented to Mr. Spence that he had at that time in the Commercial and Savings Bank of San José the sum of $196.70, and that Mr. Spence re-Med solely on such representation in parting with said [118]hogs; in other words, that he would not have parted with said hogs or delivered them to the defendant unless the defendant had told him that he had such money in bank, and that that representation induced Mr. Spence to part with said hogs; if you do not so find, you must acquit the defendant.”

“A bank check is not a false token within the statute.”

It is very clear that if the court had given the first of these instructions, the jury would have been compelled to exclude from consideration all that was said or done in the transaction tending to prove the defendant’s guilt, and would have been obliged to acquit him unless it had appeared that the defendant had said to Mr. Spence when he handed him the check, “ I have the money that check calls for in the Commercial .and Savings Bank of San José.” Such a misleading instruction, utterly discarding all the evidence pertinent to the issue, was very properly refused.

A bank check may be a false token, and would be such under the statute, if the drawer knew when he gave it, payable to a person other than himself, that he had neither funds to meet it nor credit at the bank upon which he drew it. (Penal Code, sec. 532; Commonwealth v. Drew, 19 Pick. 186; Rex v. Jackson, 3 Coop. 370; Roscoe’s Crim. Ev., 2d ed., 419.)

People v. Donaldson

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief